US National Interests Research Articles

Public support for withdrawal from international organizations: Experimental evidence from the US

The United States has helped create and lead many international organizations (IOs). Yet in the last six years, the US announced its withdrawal from several IOs including the World Health Organization, UNESCO, and the Universal Postal Union. Do Americans care about US withdrawals from IOs? When do Americans support withdrawing from IOs and support candidates who propose this? We argue that Americans’ support for multilateralism tends to divide along party lines, and that IO withdrawal can activate those preferences. We also argue that framing an IO withdrawal as benefiting US national interests can make Americans more likely to favor IO exit. Data from four US survey experiments during the 2016–2020 Trump administration support these arguments. Democrats tend to oppose IO withdrawals while Republicans tend to support them. Further, results show that IO withdrawal (and how it is framed) affects candidate choice and policy support. This suggests that announcing IO withdrawal can be used to rally domestic electoral support. Still, the data also show that a large proportion of the US public values remaining in IOs, even when IOs are imperfect or challenging. In these cases, we note that sunk cost fallacies, status quo bias, and loss aversion may pose friction points for supporting withdrawal. Our findings have important implications for research on public opinion about international cooperation, backlash against IOs, and their life cycles.

Trauma and Unaccompanied Child Migration in US History: Reflections from the Archives

Abstract: Through detailed analysis of archival records, Anita Casavantes Bradford traces the history of the clinical, academic, and popular understandings of trauma as it influenced US immigration policy for unaccompanied migrant children during the twentieth century. She questions why adults charged with the care of unaccompanied minors have "(mis)understood … (mis)managed … and (mis)represented" children as traumatized, both unintentionally and deliberately, in order to advance adult objectives. Casavantes Bradford provides a historical overview of US immigration and refugee polices since the 1930s as applied to unaccompanied migrant children. This history also traces the evolution of clinical and popular definitions of trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)—officially recognized by psychologists in 1980—and suggests that policies for managing and mitigating trauma among unaccompanied minors often led to negative consequences. These polices, above all, were often based on geopolitical and domestic political considerations rather than the welfare of children, according to Casavantes Bradford. Thus, during the 1980s, unaccompanied minors from Haiti and Central America reaching the United States faced detention and deportation, while Sudanese "lost boys" were granted preferential treatment that aligned with US national security interests in Africa. Since the 1930s, markers of difference such as race, class, and religion have also played fundamental roles in which unaccompanied minors have been given the "right to be traumatized" and resettlement. Casavantes Bradford cautions researchers against interpreting migrant children's experiences through biased or ahistorical notions of trauma that oversimplify individual young people's experiences and their potential resilience. Historians and others should critically examine their own assumptions when studying trauma and the experiences of unaccompanied migrant children.

Američki realisti i rat u Bosni 1992-1995.

While there is a significant body of literature on U.S. policy towards Bosnia in the early 1990s, the role and policy recommendations of American realists have been largely overlooked. Realism is a school of thought in international relations which holds that states are the key actors motivated by interests which seek to maximize their power and security in an anarchic world. Adherents of this worldview emphasize the pursuit of national interests and the importance of power and force in achieving it. Realists are generally opposed to military interventions where a vital national interest is not at stake. The purpose of this article is to fill this gap by analysing both realist policymakers and academics and how they responded to the war in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995. Several top officials of the George H. W. Bush Administration including the President, Secretary of State James Baker and National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft were realists and this worldview shaped the US response to the outbreak of the war in Bosnia. Focused on a host of other foreign policy issues at the time, the Bush Administration was adamant not to get involved militarily in Bosnia. James Baker’s statement „We don't have a dog in that fight“ came to define the Bush Administration's Bosnia policy. Its realist outlook combined with the presidential campaign priorities in 1992 to ensure that the Western response to the war in Bosnia was handed over to the Europeans. With realist policymakers in power from the outbreak of the war in spring 1992 through early 1993, many Bosnians hoping for a Western military intervention at the time would later come to realise how far-fetched those hopes were. In addition to realist policymakers, several prominent realists in the American academia also weighed in on how the US should respond to the war in this part of Southeast Europe in the early 1990s. Academic realists published their opinions and recommended policy options in leading media outlets throughout the three-and-a-half year war. Though their worldview was not shared by the first Bill Clinton Administration, academic realists continued offering policy recommendations on Bosnia. Academic realists like Robert Pape and Michael Desch opposed the use of air power in Bosnia arguing that it would be ineffective. John Mearsheimer together with Pape called for partition of Bosnia and establishment of homogeneous states in the Balkans and arming of Bosnian Muslims. Kissinger was opposed to a military commitment to Bosnia but did not lay out specific policy recommendations. In sum, both policymakers and academics argued that there was no vital US national interest at stake in Bosnia warranting deployment of ground troops. Even after the Dayton peace talks concluded in late 1995, American realists continued weighing in on Bosnia and offering generally bleak assessments. While the majority of those recommended policy options were not implemented, realists’ views on Bosnia in the 1990s still deserve scholarly attention. Studying American realists provides an overview of how both practitioners and intellectual adherents of a key theory in international relations perceived the war and its outcome. This analysis will also provide a more nuanced understanding of the variety of American responses to the war in Bosnia.

Jimmy Carter and the US–Turkish security relationship, 1977–1980

This article analyses Jimmy Carter’s policy towards Turkey between 1977 and 1980. It argues that the US-Turkish relationship represents another example of Carter’s pragmatism in foreign policy. Turkey remained a close US ally and NATO member throughout the Cold War. In the 1970s, the bilateral relationship confronted challenges, particularly following the 1974 Cyprus Crisis. Carter’s 1976 election accentuated bilateral tensions due to his perceived pro-Greek and pro-Cypriot – and, by implication, anti-Turkish – stance on Greece-Cyprus-Turkey issues during the election campaign. Once in office, however, Carter prioritized a traditional interpretation of US national interest towards a close Cold War ally, emphasizing the security dimension of the relationship. The administration’s policy required adjustments in terms of strategy to fit the ever-changing domestic Turkish politics and regional developments. President Carter and his top foreign policy advisors remained determined to repair and secure a crucial alliance with a strategic ally.

A US Industrial Policy For Global Health.

Global competition is the wrong strategic lens for an industrial policy involving critical collective health needs. Threats to US health and national security interests in this sector are transnational, and the inputs required for US biopharmaceutical innovation and resilience are globally distributed. To accelerate innovation in the life sciences, the US needs a targeted strategy that invests in domestic self-sufficiency where it is attainable and important and that mobilizes the international collaborations needed to make and deploy medical technologies to promote human health and a more resilient economy worldwide. The US needs an industrial policy for global health.

History of Sub-Saharan Africa’s Long Journey towards Economic Emancipation

Abstract The history of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) i.e., the trade partnership between the US and sub-Saharan African states indicates that the initial Clinton Administration blueprint for this venture was to operate for eight years, from 2000 to 2008. However, in 2004 George Bush, the incoming US president, pushed the AGOA mandate to 2015. Before the AGOA order could expire, its mandate was again extended to 2025 by then US president Barack Obama. This study argues that the lofty ambitions inscribed in the design of AGOA seem not to have lived up to their billing. The study finds that the theoretical win-win proposition that was envisioned does not appear to have yielded the desired economic results for sub-Saharan states mainly because the enterprise is likely a one-sided trade deal in favour of the US. Data for this study was gathered from qualitative and quantitative sources. The study concludes that given the pattern of the US engagements with sub-Saharan Africa, which seems only focused on advancing US national interests, the sub-Saharan region needs to devise alternative trade partnerships if its economy is to grow. The study recommends that sub-Saharan Africa focuses on intra-Africa trade. Alternatively, it should strengthen development cooperation with emerging markets such as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

Iranski nuklearni sporazum kao odraz nesaglasnosti u transatlantskim odnosima tokom administracije Američkog predsednika Donalda Trampa

At the center of this work is the analysis of the consequences of implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (also known as - the Iran nuclear deal) on divergent foreign policy approaches as the main indicators of the mismatch in relations between the United States and the European Union during the administration of the 45th US President Donald Trump. While the US unilaterally withdrew from this agreement, EU member states remained in it. The United States and the European Union, on the one hand, and Iran, on the other, had completely different definitions of their own national security, insisting on their unilateral security, while failing to redefine the problem in the direction of mutual security. However, in addition, the US and EU member states, although both concerned about their own security due to the possible emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran, instead of a complementary approach to the issue had a mutually competing one. Using the case study method, as well as the analytical-deductive method and the content analysis method, the author explains the difference in this approach through the concept of the strategic culture of the US and the EU and concludes that they are a consequence of the different understanding of international relations, but also due to the different identity characters of these two actors. The main thesis of the paper is that the US administration of Donald Trump, with its more realistic and Hobbesian view of international relations, and a different understanding of the US national interest in the Middle East, adopted a different approach to curbing Iran's nuclear armament ambitions compared to the approach of the European Union, which is conditioned by a more liberal and Kantian nature of its view on international relations. With unilateral foreign policy actions, Trump's administration risked causing damage and shaking its own credibility in relations with the European Union. On the other hand, the European Union remains committed to multilateralism and the preservation of the Iran nuclear deal. The subject of this research is the direction of the foreign policy actions of the United States and the European Union, in the period from the unilateral withdrawal of Trump's cabinet from the Iran nuclear agreement on May 8th, 2018, until the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, a general of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on January 3rd, 2020 in the Republic of Iraq. The current state and perspective of contemporary transatlantic political relations in the context of unilateral withdrawal will be taken into consideration. In accordance with its new foreign policy agenda and strategy, and more inclined to a realistic view of international relations, the Trump administration risked deeper conflicts and divergence with the European Union over regional security issues. Thus, there was a threat to limit the further deepening and strengthening of the transatlantic partnership with the leading member states of the European Union, especially with the government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the government of the Republic of France. Additionally, the subject of research will be the patterns of behavior, embodied in speeches and foreign policy actions, which are consistent with the different approaches of the US and the EU to the problem of preventing the theocratic regime in Iran from developing its nuclear program. Accordingly, the focus will be on the period of the Trump administration, which, with its political will to break off with the legacy of the Obama administration, began to perceive Iran as a factor causing instability in the Middle East region. The Trump administration did not ratify the Iran nuclear agreement and continued to act under its obligations, solely because of the unfavorable benefits and a large number of shortcomings for the US. Thus, the paper will analyze whether the US administration of Donald Trump had a concrete foreign policy strategy in relations with the European Union and Iran. Also, the paper will try to answer the question of whether a unilateral or multilateral approach to regional security problems is more fruitful, taking into consideration the question of whether the unilateral approach of the only superpower in the world is more effective or, on the other hand, an international coalition of states is needed to suppress the Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Military Assistance to Ukraine from the Perspective of US National Interests

Military Assistance to Ukraine from the Perspective of US National Interests

America’s Defence of Its Partners in the Middle East

The main factors American presidents typically consider before committing military resources to protect a partner include perceived US national interests, US domestic politics, the nature of the attack itself, the aggressor’s military capabilities and the possibility of escalation. An additional factor is the ability and willingness of the partner to conduct joint and combined operations with the United States and possibly others. This is critically important in the Middle East. As Washington prioritises the Indo-Pacific and Europe, US military forces will draw down in the Middle East and be less able to intervene promptly. To maintain strong regional deterrence, security arrangements between the United States and its Arab partners should be reconfigured to ensure that they can confront regional threats, Iran’s in particular, without immediate American assistance. The will require American advice and assistance in creating sustainable and effective joint forces.

Solarium Reimagined: Containing the Rise of China

The following paper studies the nature and plausible justifications to current trade war between the US and China. The theory of hegemonic power runs through the narrative embodied in this paper and postulates that the trade war has been initiated as an instrument to counter the rise of China in the global political economy. The lineages of the trade war can be traced back to trade deficit between China and the US, rivalry for global economic dominance and the US midterm elections. This paper will unpack the nature of the trade war looking at the history of other trade wars before this one. The second part will engage international relations theory, particularly hegemonic power and status to examine the validity of the idea that the rise of China threatens the US national interests and security. The third part will reflect on the above, revisit a project Solarium that president Eisenhower formulated in 1953 to counter the soviet expansionism during the Cold War era and postulate what could be expected next through the prism of hegemonic power in global politics. This paper concludes with an empirical case for caution that just as project solarium was a long-term strategy to counter Soviet expansionism during the Cold War, the US will need a similar long term policy position to counter the Rise of China.

Right-wing Terrorism and Emerging Threats to the US National Interests

The USA acclaims to be a multicultural land of opportunity assimilating migrant settlers since its inception,but another facet of the USA is a culture of white racial supremacy, and orthodox beliefs regarding blacks, women, religiousand ideological others. The policy of constructing the ideological other, i.e., communism, was the highlight of cold warpolitics. The end of the cold war brought a shift in US policy and led to the rise of right-wing nationalist groups. The Trumpvictory was the triumph of these groups leading to an exponential rise in incidents of domestic terrorism during the TrumpEra. The paper employing Realist IR theory analyzes the Right-wing terrorist ideology through secondary data. One outcomeof the study is that the ideology of populism employing violence is causing civil unrest and is a stigma for USA soft image,and the rise of domestic terrorism is associated with the wave of global religious revivalism.

U.S Democracy Campaign during The Civil War in Libya

The NATO intervention in Libya was one of the most contentious conflict in 2011. The permission given by the UNSC for NATO to intervene in Libya led to a debate that said intervention carried out in Libya was not based on the humanitarian objectives but for US national interest. This situation is strengthened by several NATO activities that show their involvement is for the US interest. Some of the US interest are protecting their territorial sovereignty from terrorism, oil interest and democracy campaign or ideology. Ideology is counted as their long-range or important interest. Previous studies have explained the other US interest in Libya such as the oil interest and terrorism. However, there are not many studies that precisely portray the importance of liberalism in this operation. Therefore, this research is questioning on the importance of democracy campaign during operation by NATO for the US. The main argument in this study is that US did not only launch the operation for humanitarian reason but for its own interest and that democracy liberal ideology interest hold the same importance as the other interest of US.

Foreign Friends: Syngman Rhee, American Exceptionalism, and the Division of Korea

Foreign Friends: Syngman Rhee, American Exceptionalism, and the Division of Korea

A Comparison between the Concepts of Gray Zone and Hybrid War: What is New for International Security?

Albeit the Hybrid War has dominated security studies since 2006, it is also observed that the term ‘Gray Zone’ has increasingly taken part as well in connection with China and Russia after 2015. However, there is also a debate and confusion in the literature over gray zone activities, its relationship with hybrid war, and their implementations. This article aims to discuss and assess the theoretical relationship between these concepts and their implications for international security, by comparing recent Russian and Chinese practices. The article asserts that hybrid and gray zone activities are neither new nor the same, and the Gray Zone Concept emerged as a reflection of the shift in the US strategical attention from Russia to China, and aimed to harmonize US national interests with other Allies’ security concerns. However, it also acknowledges that the concept is real, and should be differentiated and separated from hybrid war.

PAK-US BILATERAL RELATIONS UNDER BUSH ADMINISTRATION

Pak-US relations under Bush administration historically reached at its peak. It was the result of his doctrine known as ‘Bush Doctrine’. It resulted in constituting a fundamental shift in US foreign policy. This work tried to dig out that how Bush decided to framed his own strategies and way of using power and influence for the pursuit of USA national interests. Unlike president Clinton, president Bush focused on securing geo-strategic rather geo-economic interests. It is also tried to high light that what compelled Bush administration to tilt towards Pakistan. It includes especially inexorable geographical position of Pakistan in the region, so was preferred by US policy makers in this region. Bush even ignored US policy to promote democracy and supported undemocratic rule of General Pervez Musharraf, as his rule was inevitable to secure US national interests in the region. Authorities in Pakistan promised to assist US in its war on terror. It was the same role of Pakistan for which it was given the status of non- NATO ally. Bush Administration in return offered economic and military assistance to Pakistan. This study is based on qualitative insight to find out the real face of Pak-US relations under Bush administration. Secondary data including reports of different institutions, books, research articles and analysis by several scholars have been approached to furnish this work.

The US–South Korea alliance: How the patron benefits from the protégé

Since the end of World War II, the US military has continuously deployed troops to South Korea. The alliance works as an asymmetrical alliance, where the US is a patron and South Korea is a protégé. While it is argued that this deployment has significant political, economic, and military effects on South Korea and the region, few studies have examined how the presence of US forces there enhances US military and economic power as well as national security interests. In this paper, we examine the costs and benefits of the US–South Korea alliance, specifically focusing on US troop deployment on the Korean Peninsula. In particular, we argue that the US military alliance with South Korea has significant benefits to both partners, but particularly for the sake of US national security interests. In this sense, the protégé state provides significant benefits to the patron state. We discuss the strategic importance of South Korea in US foreign policy in the region and emphasize the benefits of the US–South Korea alliance at the various levels.

“If the gas pipeline would be built, we lose”: transcript of Reagan's speech at the US National Security Council Meeting on the Sanctions against Soviet Union

The object of this research is the declassified transcript of the US National Security Council Meeting of July 9, 1981, dedicated to introduction of the economic and political restrictions on building of the Soviet gas main pipeline. The subject of this research is the analysis information-bearing capabilities of the office documentation of the US National Security Council Meetings for conducting the scientific assessment of sanctions policy of the US government against the Soviet Union in the 1980s as part of directives on restricting the access of the Soviet Union to foreign markets. The article examines the published protocol the US National Security Council Meeting and related documents that contain information on creating the regime to impede the construction of the gas main pipeline to Europe. The novelty of lies in the fact that this article is first within the framework of historiographical analysis to study the plans of the US President R. Reagan on interruption of the active efforts of the Soviet Union to supply Western Europe with energy. Publication of the document clearly demonstrates that the ideas of restarting the trade-economic development of the Soviet Union were later implemented in other countries in the XXI century, when the Russian Nord Stream pipeline became one of the crucial vanguards within the system of control of the US national security interests in Europe. Based on the newly introduced documents from the foreign archives of the CIA, Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, materials of the US periodical press, and memoirs, the author explores the options prepared by the US agencies aimed at complete shutdown, and restriction of access of the participants of the Soviet-German gas pipeline deal to foreign markets and resources, as well as the response of business community to trade embargo with the USSR.

Commentary

Commentary

UNITED STATES: A REVIEW OF THE US MIDDLE EAST POLICY FROM HARRY TRUMAN TO BILL CLINTON

Since the Second World War, the Middle East has been mentioned in connection with the national interest of America manifested by US presidents. This paper looks at the US foreign policy in the Middle East from Truman to Clinton on the premise that the US foreign policy has contributed to creating a breeding ground for dissatisfaction toward the US In this context, the paper focuses on the doctrines in use from the time of President Truman to Clinton. Thus, every American president has a doctrine, and this doctrine tells what political line the president follows regarding domestic and foreign policies. Keywords: Middle-East, Israel, US national interest, Soviet Union, Natural resources, ideologies.

Desert Shield of the Republic? A Realist Case for Abandoning the Middle East

Political realists disagree on what America should “do” and “be” in the Middle East. All are skeptical toward extravagant geopolitical projects to transform the region. Yet they differ over whether hegemony in the Gulf and its wider environs are worth the substantial investment of blood and treasure. Hegemonic “primacy realism” finds the commitment effective and affordable, and that Washington should stay to stabilize the region to ensure a favorable concentration of power. There is an alternative “shield of the republic” realism, however, which views the pursuit of armed supremacy in the Middle East as harming political order at home, reducing security more than generating it, and costing too much for too little gain. It involves interests that are either manageable from a remove or largely generated by being there in the first place. In this article, we lay out the latter position, arguing that the unruly Gulf is increasingly peripheral to US national interests. The region is losing its salience grand strategically, entanglement and continuous war damage republican liberties, and the calculus of whether continued hegemony is “worth it” has shifted decisively toward the downside. The time for abandonment has come.